Someone else as in the other 150 or so players that are much worse than A-Rod and Lee on any given day as opposed to listening to the knuckleheads in the Chicago and New York media that claim neither of these guys are good because they aren't "clutch" despite no statistical numbers actually backing up their claims.

A-Rod we've went over in other threads. Neither are as un-clutch as people like to think or SportsCenter morons that decide to nit-pick particular weeks and then call these players un-clutch and question their drive to win.

Konerko05

09-02-2008, 11:24 PM

The entire White Sox lineup on the road.

JB98

09-02-2008, 11:36 PM

Jerry Owens

Lefty34

09-02-2008, 11:43 PM

Someone else as in the other 150 or so players that are much worse than A-Rod and Lee on any given day as opposed to listening to the knuckleheads in the Chicago and New York media that claim neither of these guys are good because they aren't "clutch" despite no statistical numbers actually backing up their claims.

A-Rod we've went over in other threads. Neither are as un-clutch as people like to think or SportsCenter morons that decide to nit-pick particular weeks and then call these players un-clutch and question their drive to win.

No no no, people need to see these numbers until they understand that the New York Post and SportsCenter are biased morons.

Either David Eckstein and his .278/.333/.335 line in postseason games (seriously, only six extra-base hits in 191 plate appearances!) or Scott Brosius and his .245/.278/.418 line in postseason games (though he has a more respectable 17 extra-base hits in 206 plate appearances).

Or maybe Andy Gonzalez, the worst hitter I can currently think of, who would therefore be the absolute last player I would want up in a clutch situation. Or any pitcher not named Zambrano, Hampton, or Sabathia.

Also, out of curiosity, where do you guys get your late-and-close and RISP numbers so easily?

Lefty34

09-03-2008, 12:05 AM

Either David Eckstein and his .278/.333/.335 line in postseason games (seriously, only six extra-base hits in 191 plate appearances!) or Scott Brosius and his .245/.278/.418 line in postseason games (though he has a more respectable 17 extra-base hits in 206 plate appearances).

Or maybe Andy Gonzalez, the worst hitter I can currently think of, who would therefore be the absolute last player I would want up in a clutch situation. Or any pitcher not named Zambrano, Hampton, or Sabathia.

Also, out of curiosity, where do you guys get your late-and-close and RISP numbers so easily?

baseball-reference.com just type in a player name then go to splits, you can choose between career splits or splits by year

Adele_H

09-03-2008, 01:42 AM

My choices isn't on the list. George Brett and Lou Gerhig apparently were dreadful clutch hitters.

FedEx227

09-03-2008, 08:50 AM

baseball-reference.com just type in a player name then go to splits, you can choose between career splits or splits by year

D. Lee was leading the NL in the now defunct category of game winning RBI a few weeks ago. Hell, give me D. Lee or A. Rod any day of the week they are plenty clutch enough!

chaerulez

09-03-2008, 09:19 AM

I think with Lee it's because he seems to ground into double plays in key situations. And he doesn't offset that image by hitting key HRs like A. Ramirez. No one remembers if he hits a single with a tie game in the 7th with the runner on first and one out. But they remember if he hits into a double player. It's all about perception, which can lead to false conclusions.

skottyj242

09-03-2008, 09:41 AM

According to Moneyball there is no such thing as clutch hitting.

hellview

09-03-2008, 10:44 AM

According to Moneyball there is no such thing as clutch hitting.

Money ball is right...

Last season Arod hit .333/.406/.678 with RISP

This season he's hitting .255/.401/.409

Do you really think Arod is doing anything different from last season or it's just pure bad luck that the hits that dropped in last season aren't dropping in anymore.

There is no such things as clutch, it's an statistical enomaly.

Oblong

09-03-2008, 10:51 AM

FWIW, Bill James has changed his stance on clutch hitting. The last I read, he's unsure now whether it does or doesn't exist as a skill.

What is accurate is that whether someone is clutch or not is based mostly on perception. We remember the extreme performances that confirm our initial beliefs (either getting a big hit or failing) and ignore/forget the others. Tiger fans always refer to Jack Morris as a clutch pitcher in the postseason. He was, for a couple of games. And for a couple of more games he was putrid.

Last postseason Jeter hit into 2 GIDP's against Cleveland with runners on first and third and one out. If that had been ARod he would have been lit up by the media.

NLaloosh

09-03-2008, 11:39 AM

Jerry Owens

beat me to it

Lefty34

09-03-2008, 01:09 PM

Close and Late I get off of ESPN.com not sure if B-R has it.

They do have it, otherwise I wouldn't have said B-R. Just go to splits and scroll down to situations.

WizardsofOzzie

09-03-2008, 03:21 PM

I saw this article the other day that was arguing A-Rod is the least clutch player in the league, and is typically ranked near the bottom.

A-Rod really's a very average clutch hitter at best. His clutch stats are worse than his career averages, meaning he is not a very good clutch hitter. He's not as bad as some say, but the fact that he has sucked in the postseason with the Yankees brings on the perception that he can't hit a lick in pressure situations is the reason why some people think he can't hit in the clutch.

Paulwny

09-03-2008, 05:08 PM

Money ball is right...

Last season Arod hit .333/.406/.678 with RISP

This season he's hitting .255/.401/.409

Do you really think Arod is doing anything different from last season or it's just pure bad luck that the hits that dropped in last season aren't dropping in anymore.

Do you really think Arod is doing anything different from last season or it's just pure bad luck that the hits that dropped in last season aren't dropping in anymore.

There is no such things as clutch, it's an statistical enomaly.

Rodriguez's 2007 OPS+: 177
Rodriguez's 2008 OPS+: 158

He's not as good this year.

turners56

09-03-2008, 05:14 PM

FWIW, Bill James has changed his stance on clutch hitting. The last I read, he's unsure now whether it does or doesn't exist as a skill.

What is accurate is that whether someone is clutch or not is based mostly on perception. We remember the extreme performances that confirm our initial beliefs (either getting a big hit or failing) and ignore/forget the others. Tiger fans always refer to Jack Morris as a clutch pitcher in the postseason. He was, for a couple of games. And for a couple of more games he was putrid.

Last postseason Jeter hit into 2 GIDP's against Cleveland with runners on first and third and one out. If that had been ARod he would have been lit up by the media.

Clutch hitting is not a skill. It's the hitter's ability to block out the situation and perform under normal or above average circumstances. Whenever hitters let the situation affect them mentally, performance will drop. IMO, clutch is mostly mental.

turners56

09-03-2008, 05:20 PM

I've never bought into "clutch hitting." It seems so subjective.

Baseball is subjective. Why do we have official scorers? Umpires? It's a subjective sport. If a hitter gets a big hit to win the game, we should be subjective about it. Whoever thinks an RBI single in the first and a walk-off RBI single are the same exact thing have never felt what it is like in those kinds of situations. Not everybody is the same, some perform well under pressure, others don't. And for the most part, most players don't perform well under the pressure of the post season and a late inning situation. Even some great players choke under immense pressure. A-Rod is a very good example. Rodriguez hit pretty well with the M's in the postseason. Ever since he's moved on to New York he's been hitting .150 in October. Thing is, sabermetricians act like baseball players are machines. It's true that the law of averages affects everything, but humans will be human. In a game of inches like baseball, you can't expect a career .300 hitter to hit .300 in every single season. He might hit 10 points better or 20 points worse. There are so many circumstances that goes into it that it's almost impossible to predict correctly.

spiffie

09-03-2008, 05:41 PM

Alex Rodriguez is no Joe Crede when it comes to clutch situations. That's why one of them has a ring and the other doesn't.

doublem23

09-03-2008, 05:42 PM

Alex Rodriguez is no Joe Crede when it comes to clutch situations. That's why one of them has a ring and the other doesn't.

October Joe Crede > October Alex Rodriguez.

Yeah, I said it.

All that tanning and tip-frosting really takes it out of you.

hellview

09-03-2008, 05:43 PM

Rodriguez's 2007 OPS+: 177
Rodriguez's 2008 OPS+: 158

He's not as good this year.

Clearly he's not as good as last season. But do you really think Arod is doing anything different at the plate with RISP in 2008 then he was doing in 2007?

If a guy hits a homer in the second inning and the team wins 1-0 should that count as clutch cause it's the game winning hit?

If a guy hits a sac fly with the bases loaded with no outs at home and he's gets the game winning rbi should that be clutch?

There's a million different senerios I could bring up and how do you sperate what's clutch. It's nothing more then a stupid word that John Miller and Joe Morgan throw around on ESPN cause they're morons.

doublem23

09-03-2008, 05:48 PM

Clearly he's not as good as last season. But do you really think Arod is doing anything different at the plate with RISP in 2008 then he was doing in 2007?

If a guy hits a homer in the second inning and the team wins 1-0 should that count as clutch cause it's the game winning hit?

If a guy hits a sac fly with the bases loaded with no outs at home and he's gets the game winning rbi should that be clutch?

There's a million different senerios I could bring up and how do you sperate what's clutch. It's nothing more then a stupid word that John Miller and Joe Morgan throw around on ESPN cause they're morons.

:rolleyes:

Someone doesn't understand the argument!

Eddo144

09-03-2008, 06:08 PM

Clutch hitting is not a skill. It's the hitter's ability to block out the situation and perform under normal or above average circumstances. Whenever hitters let the situation affect them mentally, performance will drop. IMO, clutch is mostly mental.
This is unrelated to A-Rod, specifically, but you don't think mental abilities are skills? Wow.

Eddo144

09-03-2008, 06:15 PM

Even some great players choke under immense pressure. A-Rod is a very good example. Rodriguez hit pretty well with the M's in the postseason. Ever since he's moved on to New York he's been hitting .150 in October
Way to contradict your own argument, there. So Rodriguez was clutch in Seattle, but unclutch in New York? Is he a different person now than he was then?

Thing is, sabermetricians act like baseball players are machines. It's true that the law of averages affects everything, but humans will be human. In a game of inches like baseball, you can't expect a career .300 hitter to hit .300 in every single season. He might hit 10 points better or 20 points worse. There are so many circumstances that goes into it that it's almost impossible to predict correctly.
First of all, the "law of averages" is not a real thing. It sometimes gets confused with regression to the mean, which is also often misinterpreted.

(Example: the league average is to hit .275 with RISP. The Twins, up until recently, were hitting over .310 is those situations. Many people would incorrectly expect the Twins to hit well less than .275 in the future. However, that's not what regression to the mean says; rather, it is the Gambler's Fallacy. Regression to the mean says that the Twins can be expected to perform at the league average in the future, which means they would hit roughly .275 for the rest of the season.)

Additionally, you're right about the small sample size issues, that a .300 hitter will see fluctuations from year to year. However, that also happens within seasons, and probably explains a lot of what people perceive to be "unclutchness".

Here's where I hate the clutch argument. Let's say that A-Rod is indeed a poor clutch hitter; that is, he hits worse in clutch situations that in normal situations. And let's say some other player, Geoff Blum, for example, is better in clutch situations than in normal situations. Would you still really want to have Geoff Blum up with two outs in the ninth over A-Rod? I know I would want my flat-out best hitter, regardless of his situational splits.

turners56

09-03-2008, 06:41 PM

This is unrelated to A-Rod, specifically, but you don't think mental abilities are skills? Wow.

Skill as in the physical talent/ability.

turners56

09-03-2008, 06:43 PM

Way to contradict your own argument, there. So Rodriguez was clutch in Seattle, but unclutch in New York? Is he a different person now than he was then?

It's called pressure. Seattle is a medium market. New York is the biggest market in America. When you are expected to do well by 20 million people compared to one million, there's a drastic mental difference. That pressure is shown specifically in the post season, where the pressure is greater than any regular season game.

turners56

09-03-2008, 06:55 PM

First of all, the "law of averages" is not a real thing. It sometimes gets confused with regression to the mean, which is also often misinterpreted.

(Example: the league average is to hit .275 with RISP. The Twins, up until recently, were hitting over .310 is those situations. Many people would incorrectly expect the Twins to hit well less than .275 in the future. However, that's not what regression to the mean says; rather, it is the Gambler's Fallacy. Regression to the mean says that the Twins can be expected to perform at the league average in the future, which means they would hit roughly .275 for the rest of the season.)

Additionally, you're right about the small sample size issues, that a .300 hitter will see fluctuations from year to year. However, that also happens within seasons, and probably explains a lot of what people perceive to be "unclutchness".

Here's where I hate the clutch argument. Let's say that A-Rod is indeed a poor clutch hitter; that is, he hits worse in clutch situations that in normal situations. And let's say some other player, Geoff Blum, for example, is better in clutch situations than in normal situations. Would you still really want to have Geoff Blum up with two outs in the ninth over A-Rod? I know I would want my flat-out best hitter, regardless of his situational splits.

I expect the Twins to fall off of their incredibly unreal .310 RISP averages, next year. It fluctuates from season to season. The Twins hit .276 with RISP last year. They hit .296 in 2006. .271 in 2005. .277 in 2004. As you see, it fluctuates from year to year, but it's been to an extreme this season, so of course people would expect them to fall off. Unfortunately, they haven't. But you can expect it to drop next season because in their recent history, the Twins have hit around .280 with RISP. There is an average, if the numbers are way above the average, it will get pulled down sooner or later. If it's way below, it will get pulled back up. Didn't this happen with the White Sox this year? We hit around .240 until late May. Now we're hitting .265 as a team. Truth of the matter is, .265 is where this team's talent level is. A .250 hitter will always be around 10 points of his batting average barring increase in talent or performance enhancing drugs. You can only be lucky for so long, so the average among an extended period of time is the average.

And the answer to your question is no. I'd rather have A-Rod than Geoff Blum anyday, regardless of the situation (to say otherwise is stupid). Because the truth of the matter is, the talent level is much higher. However, given A-Rod's playoff performances in recent years, it's not real encouraging.

Lefty34

09-03-2008, 07:13 PM

A .250 hitter will always be around 10 points of his batting average barring increase in talent or performance enhancing drugs.

"Do you know what the difference is between hitting .250 and .300 is? It's 25 hits. 25 hits in 500 at-bats is 50 points, okay? There's 6 months in a season that's about 25 weeks. That means if you get just one extra flare a week - just one - a gorp... you get a groundball, you get a groundball with eyes... you get a dying quail, just one more dying quail a week... and you're in Yankee Stadium."

-Crash Davis

Oblong

09-03-2008, 07:26 PM

Clutch hitting is not a skill. It's the hitter's ability to block out the situation and perform under normal or above average circumstances. Whenever hitters let the situation affect them mentally, performance will drop. IMO, clutch is mostly mental.

I thnk you just described a skill.

turners56

09-03-2008, 07:50 PM

I thnk you just described a skill.

Skill as in the physical talent/ability.

I already explained myself.

FedEx227

09-03-2008, 07:51 PM

Clearly he's not as good as last season. But do you really think Arod is doing anything different at the plate with RISP in 2008 then he was doing in 2007?

If a guy hits a homer in the second inning and the team wins 1-0 should that count as clutch cause it's the game winning hit?

If a guy hits a sac fly with the bases loaded with no outs at home and he's gets the game winning rbi should that be clutch?

There's a million different senerios I could bring up and how do you sperate what's clutch. It's nothing more then a stupid word that John Miller and Joe Morgan throw around on ESPN cause they're morons.

Exactly. Here's an article I wrote about it: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/43759-clutch-is-as-clutch-does-a-look-at-one-one-of-baseballs-most-debated-terms

Clutch is a joke because one you have the perception of being clutch everything you do somehow turns into clutch. Joe Crede is up in the 6th inning of a 2-1 game and ropes a run-scoring double and DJ is "Joe Joe the Clutch Hero"

turners56

09-03-2008, 07:55 PM

Exactly. Here's an article I wrote about it: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/43759-clutch-is-as-clutch-does-a-look-at-one-one-of-baseballs-most-debated-terms

Clutch is a joke because one you have the perception of being clutch everything you do somehow turns into clutch. Joe Crede is up in the 6th inning of a 2-1 game and ropes a run-scoring double and DJ is "Joe Joe the Clutch Hero"

I think a better name for clutch hitter is "Good-situational hitter". Because in essence, that's what these idiot broadcasters are really referring to.

EMachine10

09-03-2008, 08:02 PM

The only problem I have with it is that one person's opinion of what clutch is may be different from anothers, and differences in opinion may occur.

FedEx227

09-03-2008, 08:05 PM

The only problem I have with it is that one person's opinion of what clutch is may be different from anothers, and differences in opinion may occur.

Which is the biggest problem in my opinion. I'd have no problem proclaiming players clutch or not if there was an actual written time-code or basis for when it's a clutch situation, like I mentioned Jeter hit a 2-run double in the 5th. Clutch. Nick Swisher does that. Nothing. A-Rod hits a 3-run homer in the 6th inning, but flies out in the 8th, now he's not clutch. Jeter does the same. He's clutch.

You can't have it change on a game-by-game, at-bat by at-bat basis.

getonbckthr

09-03-2008, 08:07 PM

I think a better name for clutch hitter is "Good-situational hitter". Because in essence, that's what these idiot broadcasters are really referring to.
I disagree a good situational hitter is a guy who with a man on 1st has the ability to place it into RF to get the runner to 3rd.

FedEx227

09-03-2008, 08:09 PM

I disagree a good situational hitter is a guy who with a man on 1st has the ability to place it into RF to get the runner to 3rd.

So not a single member of the White Sox.

turners56

09-03-2008, 08:20 PM

I disagree a good situational hitter is a guy who with a man on 1st has the ability to place it into RF to get the runner to 3rd.

And if it is utilized correctly, that can be referred to as clutch. A good situational hitter can be a good hitter in many different situations. A good situational hitter can be a guy who can drive runners in from third with less than two outs efficiently. A good situational hitter can also be a guy who can play hit and run and get a guy from first to third. But a good situational hitter can also be a guy who gets the big hit in the 9th inning to win a game. There's many different definitions, but the one referred to as a clutch hitter is a good situational hitter in late inning situations.

turners56

09-03-2008, 08:21 PM

So not a single member of the White Sox.

Pretty much. :(:

doublem23

09-03-2008, 08:45 PM

Clutch hitting is not a skill. It's the hitter's ability to block out the situation and perform under normal or above average circumstances. Whenever hitters let the situation affect them mentally, performance will drop. IMO, clutch is mostly mental.

That's not a skill?

:dunce:

Look, I get while uber-stat-geeks don't like "clutch," because it's difficult, if not impossible, to quantify, and you guys are too busy chasing your tails trying to come up with defensive statistics that aren't god awful. But to say that it's not a real factor is ridiculous, these are still people. They're not just a collection of stats that will respond to every situation the same way. It's not the most important stat and it's not something you should build your team around, but there's nothing wrong or incorrect about saying that some players are more "clutch" than others.

doublem23

09-03-2008, 08:46 PM

I think a better name for clutch hitter is "Good-situational hitter". Because in essence, that's what these idiot broadcasters are really referring to.

Situational hitting isn't restricted to high pressure situations. You can be a good situational hitter in early April, in the first inning, and already down 10 runs. That's not the same as being down 1 in the 9th inning of the World Series with the winning run on base.

turners56

09-03-2008, 08:49 PM

That's not a skill?

:dunce:

Look, I get while uber-stat-geeks don't like "clutch," because it's difficult, if not impossible, to quantify, and you guys are too busy chasing your tails trying to come up with defensive statistics that aren't god awful. But to say that it's not a real factor is ridiculous, these are still people. They're not just a collection of stats that will respond to every situation the same way. It's not the most important stat and it's not something you should build your team around, but there's nothing wrong or incorrect about saying that some players are more "clutch" than others.

I view skill as the ability to hit the ball AKA physical ability. If you want to call being smart or ignoring things a skill, go ahead.

turners56

09-03-2008, 08:49 PM

Situational hitting isn't restricted to high pressure situations. You can be a good situational hitter in early April, in the first inning, and already down 10 runs. That's not the same as being down 1 in the 9th inning of the World Series with the winning run on base.

According to ESPN, anything good that David Ortiz does is "clutch". Therefore, good situational hitting does apply, I guess. :redneck

turners56

09-03-2008, 08:51 PM

That's not a skill?

:dunce:

Look, I get while uber-stat-geeks don't like "clutch," because it's difficult, if not impossible, to quantify, and you guys are too busy chasing your tails trying to come up with defensive statistics that aren't god awful. But to say that it's not a real factor is ridiculous, these are still people. They're not just a collection of stats that will respond to every situation the same way. It's not the most important stat and it's not something you should build your team around, but there's nothing wrong or incorrect about saying that some players are more "clutch" than others.

BTW, I think clutch does exist.

doublem23

09-03-2008, 08:51 PM

I view skill as the ability to hit the ball AKA physical ability. If you want to call being smart or ignoring things a skill, go ahead.

:?:

I'm willing to bet your opinion is in the minority. Plus, it's not just "being smart" and "ignoring things," you also have to play the game at a high level while doing it. You still have to do other things, at the same time. Maybe the act in and of itself isn't a skill, but the ability to have the mental concentration to pull one off and still be able to physically play certainly is.

BTW, I think clutch does exist.

I hope you don't feel like I'm picking on you, but I hope those that completely disregard the "clutch" factor as nothing more than dumb announcer shlub realize that their anti-clutch argument is so extreme and obviously biased that they look just as stupid when they get on their soapbox as they think the Joe Morgans of the world do.

:shrug:

FedEx227

09-03-2008, 09:06 PM

I hope you don't feel like I'm picking on you, but I hope those that completely disregard the "clutch" factor as nothing more than dumb announcer shlub realize that their anti-clutch argument is so extreme and obviously biased that they look just as stupid when they get on their soapbox as they think the Joe Morgans of the world do.

:shrug:

I absolutely believe clutch exists. There's no way to not believe it. Think about your personal experiences playing any sport and tell me there wasn't a separation between who you felt comfortable with going to at the end of a game, or who you felt comfortable going up to the play.

My argument is who people think are clutch may not be as clutch as they'd like to think. That's why I wish there was some type of requirements for a clutch situation because as I've said previously, guys considered clutch by the media or fans tend to get more "clutch" opportunities, to them anything between the 5th-9th inning is clutch while others don't have that luxury.

Also the problem I see with clutch is certain moments get stuck in our head and we tend to nitpick them. If you look at the numbers Crede is not all that great in late game situations overall, however Sox fans regard him as clutch because he had some of the biggest late-inning home runs in White Sox history.

But anyone who thinks clutch doesn't exist in an idiot. There is no doubt in my mind there are those that are better in clutch situation than others.

Eddo144

09-03-2008, 10:12 PM

The best take on the whole clutch debate (and this is an opinion I've heard many sabermetrically-inclined people agree with) is that "clutch" exists, but "clutch hitters" do not.

That is, there are definitely clutch hits and clutch situations, and many instances of players coming through in the clutch. However, being clutch is not a skill; having a clutch hit now and then is, but it does not necessarily mean that said player will come through again in the future. This differs from, say, home run hitting ability, which stays consistent year to year.

A-Rod, Jeter, and Bonds are just a few guys who were clutch in some postseasons, un-clutch in others.

turners56

09-03-2008, 11:01 PM

Crede has only played in one postseason. I wish he played in more though.

Eddo144

09-04-2008, 09:07 AM

Crede has only played in one postseason. I wish he played in more though.
Sadly, you're right. That part originally said something else, then I forgot to remove Crede's name when I changed it.